2004 (1) TMI 546 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Absence of respondents during the appeal.
2. Refixing of annual capacity of production by the Commissioner of Central Excise.
3. Abatement claim filed by the respondents.
4. Demand of duty and penalty imposed by the Commissioner of Central Excise.
5. Challenge by the Revenue regarding abatement claims.
6. Confirmation of demand and re-determination of annual capacity of furnace.

Absence of Respondents:
The judgment noted that despite notice, none appeared on behalf of the respondents as the notice was returned with remarks of "factory closed." Consequently, the appeal proceeded in the absence of the respondents.

Refixing of Annual Capacity:
The respondents were engaged in manufacturing M. S. ingots, with the annual production capacity of their furnace fixed under the Compounded Levy Scheme by the Commissioner of Central Excise. The impugned order saw the Commissioner refixing the annual capacity on the respondents' request and allowing their abatement claim before confirming a demand of Rs. 20,00,000 and imposing an equal penalty.

Abatement Claim:
The Revenue contended that the show cause notice was based on the duty demand derived from the Commissioner's determination of the annual production capacity, making the re-determination and abatement claim outside the notice's scope. However, the Commissioner considered and allowed the abatement claims filed by the respondents, with no challenge from the Revenue on the correctness of this allowance in the appeal.

Demand of Duty and Penalty:
While confirming the demand linked to the capacity determined by the Commissioner, the judgment highlighted that the adjustment of the allowed abatement in the duty was not irregular. The re-fixing of the furnace's annual capacity upon the respondents' request was deemed lawful, with no challenge from the Revenue on the correctness of this re-determination.

Confirmation of Demand and Re-determination:
Considering the circumstances and facts presented, the appeal was dismissed as lacking merit. The judgment concluded that the adjustment of the allowed abatement in duty and the re-determination of the annual furnace capacity were in accordance with the law, with no challenge to their correctness raised by the Revenue in the appeal.